CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Richard Smith]

Is there any significance to your ramblings?

Not to you Roger.   It involves the application of logic to the facts.

[Martin Weidmann]

Not to you Roger.   It involves the application of logic to the facts.

More delusional BS.

The irony is that one first needs to establish what the facts are before any logic can be applied to them. In your world, so-called "logic" creates the "facts" you need to support your predetermined conclusion. Just keep on placing the cart before the horse......

[John Iacoletti]

Like a sleazy prosecuting attorney, "Richard" thinks that all you have to do is call it "Oswald's rifle", and *poof* it becomes Oswald's rifle.  Because "logic".

[Richard Smith]

More delusional BS.

The irony is that one first needs to establish what the facts are before any logic can be applied to them. In your world, so-called "logic" creates the "facts" you need to support your predetermined conclusion. Just keep on placing the cart before the horse......

No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.  That is the entire point.  You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt.  Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.  The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless. 

[John Iacoletti]

No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.  That is the entire point.  You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt.  Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.  The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.

It's only "impossible" to you, because you want your "logic" (read: conjecture) to be sufficient.  Marina saw a part of a wooden stock wrapped up in a rolled up and tied blanket in late September / early October that she took to be a rifle, therefore it was a Mannlicher Carcano rifle with serial number C2766 and it was picked up by Oswald on November 21 and brought to the TSBD in a brown paper package.

Not because of evidence, but because of "logic".

[Martin Weidmann]

No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.  That is the entire point.  You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt.  Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.  The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.

No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.

Well, let's see.....

A wrapped up blanket, containing nothing, was found by police at Ruth Paine's garage..... That's a fact

Oswald carried a package to work that apparently was bigger than a normal lunch bag, which two witnesses described in such a way that it would be too small to conceal a broken down rifle.... That's a fact

There is no evidence to show that Oswald was in Ruth Paine's garage during his last stay at her house.... That's a fact

There is no evidence to show that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever in the paper bag Oswald carried on Friday morning..... That's a fact

How am I doing so far?......

You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt. 

Again, you have it backwards. Scepticism comes first and actual evidence is required to eliminate that doubt. You just assume that something is true, when it computes with your bias, and simply never examine available evidence nor do you even question claims for which there is no evidence at all.

Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.

There is no need for an alternative scenario or evidence to support it when one simply wants to examine the evidence on which the prosecutoral case of the WC is based. Instead of actually providing evidence that could convince me, you instead constantly whine and complain that I can not be convinced of anything which is total BS. Even worse, you have never even tried to convince me with sound arguments and persuasive evidence. You sound like a prosecutor who complains that the jury is not willing to just take his word for it! It's truly pathetic!

The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.

Another classic strawman. I don't need to create doubt about anything as I have no horse in this race. I couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not. The man has been dead for over half a century. All I am interested in is the truth about what really happened. You should try that approach some time..... but then again, forget it, your bias will never allow you to do that.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's only "impossible" to you, because you want your "logic" (read: conjecture) to be sufficient.  Marina saw a part of a wooden stock wrapped up in a rolled up and tied blanket in late September / early October that she took to be a rifle, therefore it was a Mannlicher Carcano rifle with serial number C2766 and it was picked up by Oswald on November 21 and brought to the TSBD in a brown paper package.

Not because of evidence, but because of "logic".

Indeed.... In Richard Smith's mind assumptions become "evidence" and "logic" creates "facts"

[John Iacoletti]

You should just swallow whatever you are told and not question it, because otherwise you're a "contrarian", and that's bad.